Very confused on "No Salvation Outside the Catholic Church."

[Beth_Martin]

Of course the true interpreter is the Holy Spirit. But only within the confines of the Magisterium of the Church that gets the final say since it’s the Holy Spirit leading Her into all truths. For you and other sS to sit back and preach the Gospel according to how you ‘feel’ a certain verse is saying is what has caused your many divisions. And when you do come to a road block where two of you disagree, who’s going to settle the argument.

Not in Scripture (magisterium) and plenty of divisions among Catholics concerning doctrine and even how the Mass should be performed or not.

My 3 non denominational friends disagree with your OSAS doctrine.

Your 3 friends are ignorant concerning the “perseverance of the saints” and how it is taught in God’s word. If they are Christian & have it shown by Scripture their error, then they will accept the truth.

It sounds to me if you read just above that passage that Paul was in fact doing many Baptisms. If this was not important and His preaching was, then He’d never have done them to begin with now would He. But he was making a point that He was not a baptismal minister only but had a very special and unique role as a Servant of Christ which of course was preaching the Gospel. Baptism was still a must… You just said prior to this that Paul deemphasized Baptism yet now you’re saying He wasn’t …

The topic is water baptism in RELATION to salvation which is why I said Paul deemphasized water baptism, but would never demphasize salvation or its elements, which water baptism is not. Understand?

What does the Bible say as plain as day Beth. Amazingly when something is spelled out so clearly in Scripture that refutes your argument, you still won’t see it. Notice it doesn’t say they were saved by the Ark. I wouldn’t think it would be too hard for the writer to replace the word Water with Ark now would it. But He didn’t and didn’t on purpose.

How about putting n your thinking cap for a minute; how did the water or flood save Noah and the 8 yet destroy the rest of all the earth? They can’t both be true, so something is wrong and we can usually look at the translation and verify it from Scripture. KJV say “saved by water”; we know that isn’t true for the water is the judgment, but the better translations including the NKJV says “were saved through water”, which now begins to make some common sense in light of the fact that the water killed everything.

Peter speaks of the same event in 2 Peter “God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment; 5 and did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a preacher of righteousness, with seven others, when He brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly;” Common sense says the flood is equivilent to a bunch of water and that God brought it to judge the UNgODLY. Now we can conclude from Peter and the Holy Spirit that the water represents judgment - follow?

The prophet Isaiah had something to say; rather God in chapter 54 “For this is like the days of Noah to Me, When I swore that the waters of Noah Would not flood the earth again; So I have sworn that I will not be angry with you Nor will I rebuke you.” Now we have the plain use of the word water in relation to judgment.

Now lets go back to the beginning in Genesis:
The water prevailed more and more upon the earth, so that all the high mountains everywhere under the heavens were covered. 20 The water prevailed fifteen cubits higher, and the mountains were covered. 21 All flesh that moved on the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind; 22 of all that was on the dry land, all in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life, died. 23 Thus ***He blotted out every living thing that was upon the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky, and they were blotted out from the earth; and only Noah was left, together with those that were with him in the ark. ***

How will you now argue with the Word of God?

**I can’t get your picture simply because you paint a wrong one. **The **verse speaks of water being the element doing the saving both in Noah’s case **as with Baptism. It never mentioned any Ark but you seem to be struggling with this verse to the point where you’re dying to make the water miraculously mean the Ark and Christ. It said saved by water and connected it to Baptism which also includes water when it’s performed on an individual.
This doesn’t even make sense.

You have convinced me that you do not see the painting. Makes sense that the water, the flood, which killed everything; yet that same water saved Noah? Wonder why he spent several years building the Ark? What significance is there that they "entered as God had commanded him; and the LORD closed it behind him."? (speaking of the door of the Ark)

"Behold, I, even I am bringing the flood of water upon the earth, to destroy all flesh in which is the breath of life, from under heaven; everything that is on the earth shall perish. 18 "But I will establish My covenant with you; and you shall enter the ark–you and your sons and your wife, and your sons’ wives with you. 19 "And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every kind into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. 20 "Of the birds after their kind, and of the animals after their kind, of every creeping thing of the ground after its kind, two of every kind will come to you to keep them alive. "

 

[Pete_Holter]

That is great and great impositionon the text to fit your belief, but I disagree with your interpretation because I know the nature of God, including how one is saved, and I know He does not change and I have already shown that Paul was converted prior to water baptism as all Christians are as the Scripture teaches; otherwise God is the God of change and He says He does not change; only people do.

Good afternoon, Beth!

I read Acts 9 and 22 in light of each other.

Let us assume for a second you are correct, then we now have contradictions in Scripture and either one believes the Scripture contradicts itself or we do not. If we do not believe contradictions exist, then we must examine our own understanding as to what God has said and what He meant.

I don’t see the contradiction. It’s your interpretation of the immutability of God and how that impacts His interaction with His creation that is creating this contradiction for you. Jesus told Ananias that Paul had “seen in a vision a man named Ananias come in and lay his hands on him so that he might regain his sight” (Acts 9:12). Acts 22:13 says that Paul “saw him” after he had done this. Ananias explained to Paul that he had also been sent so that Paul may “be filled with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 9:17). And apart from laying hands on him, the only other thing Ananias did was baptize him. “Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on His Name” (Acts 22:16). Therefore, understanding the text in a straightforward manner, Paul received the Holy Spirit when he called on the Name of Jesus in baptism.

You left out the important part "not the removal of dirt from the flesh"-Peter is telling readers that he is not refering to “water baptism”.

John answered and said to them all, ***"As for me, I baptize you with water; but One is coming who is mightier than I, and I am not fit to untie the thong of His sandals; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit ***and fire. -----Luke 3 This is what Peter has in mind; the HS immersion which comes to those who come to God with a true heart of repentance, which is the “appeal to God for a good conscience” in 1 Peter 3 and it is based on , as Peter continues on the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

If there was any passage that should dimiss any notion of saving grace and water baptism, you picked a very good one.

We believe that he is indeed referring here to our baptism “of water and the Spirit” (John 3:5), because we believe that there is only “one baptism” (Ephesians 4:5), and the baptism Peter is talking about manifestly uses water. When Peter says that the saving effect of baptism is “not as a removal of dirt from the body,” doesn’t this indicate to our mind that he is indeed referring to a baptism using a physical cleansing agent, i.e., water? Otherwise, why mention this aspect about our baptism not saving us? If it were not a baptism using water that he was referring to, then why the confusion about what’s happening to the physical body during the baptism? Hence, the correspondence between our baptism and the Old Testament figures being “brought safely through water” (1 Pet 3:20). Peter’s caution about baptism not saving us “as a removal of dirt from the body,” is actually a caution against an over-concern for the mode of baptism, about how the water is used on your body. It’s ok if you don’t get all wet like when you’re taking a bath. We don’t have to be scrubbing our armpits with the waters of baptism in order to receive the Spiritual cleansing. The symbolic washing effect of the water is just that: symbolic. And although water is necessary for baptism, we do not believe that the water by itself saves us. We believe that the Holy Spirit commingled with the water saves us.

We believe that it is Jesus Who baptizes us with His Spirit through human agency. This is the meaning of John’s Gospel where he tells us “that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John (although Jesus Himself did not baptize, but only His disciples)” (John 4:1-2). And to convince us that this was not a mere rumor, and that Jesus really was the One baptizing, John had previously told us that “Jesus and His disciples went into the Judean countryside, and He remained there with them and was baptizing” (John 3:22). What we gain from these passages is the fact that Jesus, not His disciples, baptizes everyone in one sense, and His disciples concomitantly and simultaneously baptize everyone in another sense. The two baptisms are one. We understand the solution to be that we the human agents baptize by applying the water and invoking God’s Name, while Jesus at the same time baptizes us with His Holy Spirit and with fire. This is how we are “born of water and the Spirit” (John 3:5). And this is why John the Baptist is able to say that Jesus baptizes with the Holy Spirit rather than with water like himself. Jesus uses us – “His disciples” – to apply the water.

With the grace and love towards you of our Lord Jesus Christ,
Pete

 

[Pete_Holter]

For example on water baptism;
For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void. - if water baptism is necessary to wash away sins, then why would Paul deemphasize water baptism? He wouldn’t because Paul knew water baptism was not a part of salvation.

The reason why he was talking about baptism in this way is given in the text: “I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one may say that you were baptized in my name… For it has been reported to me by Chloe’s people that there is quarreling among you, my brothers… I appeal to you… that there be no divisions among you” (1 Cor 1:14-15; 11; 10). Baptism had evidently become a pretext for making divisions amongst the infant believers of Corinth. And this, actually and ironically, points to the significance of baptism in the life of the Church. But the people erred in looking to the human agency and had lost sight of or failed to ever appreciate the fact that “neither he who plants nor he who waters is anything, but only God who gives the growth” (1 Cor 3:7). Paul is pleased to have not baptized people, not so that they would not be baptized, but so that they couldn’t point to him in any way as being a cause of their divisions.

Paul asks two vital questions to reveal to us the nature of baptism in this passage: “Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?” (1 Cor 1:13). He thereby indicates that the person in whose name you are baptized is the person into whose death you are united. Christ’s crucifixion is made our own through our being baptized in His Name. This is Paul’s teaching in Romans 6: “We were buried therefore with Him by baptism into death” (Rom 6:4). Appreciating this, we can see that he is making reference to the glorious effect of his own baptism when he mentions, for example, “the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by which the world has been crucified to me, and I to the world” (Gal 6:14). For “[w]e know that our old self was crucified with him” when we “were buried… with Him by baptism into death” (Rom 6:6; 4). This is why our sins are washed away when we are baptized in His Name, because “the death He died He died to sin” (Rom 6:10), and that death is made our own when we are baptized into His death and born again as a new creation “of water and the Spirit” (John 3:5).

This passage in Corinthians also affirms the fact that preaching the Gospel is the “principal duty” of the Apostles and their successors:

It is necessary, first of all to teach this to the people: The body of Christ was similar to ours, with the exception of sin. It is not only but also sanctifying, capable of suffering, exposed to death, and able to stand in the stead of all of us. Christ offered His body, and us at the same time, to satisfy divine justice (cf. I Pt 3.18). He handed Himself – and us at the same time – to all the torments which our crimes merited. He was condemned to the sorrows of death and suffered the curse given to sinners by the law: death under the harshest tortures. He satisfied the law, for the death and burial of Jesus Christ abolished all sin. The Lord Jesus rose from the grave with the same flesh but it was stripped of its mortality and adorned with glory of eternity. In order that they may be justified, it is necessary for sinners to die with Christ, Who died in their place and in their name. Then they must enter the grave with Christ, in order to leave behind the flesh defiled by sin. They must hand over the old man to the wrath of God and to the death of the sinner, so that by baptism a new man might return to life in us and live again with Christ in immortality and eternal glory…

The principal duty of the bishop is to preach the word of God, for the apostle cried: “Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel. It is a duty which has been laid on me” (1 Cor 9:16). The Lord Jesus Christ did not send him primarily to baptize – even though this is a holy action – but especially to preach the gospel (cf. 1 Cor 1:17). We know that the ministry of the word held first place in the minds of the apostles and that these holy men did not neglect this duty (cf. Acts 6:2, 4). For this reason they thought it fitting to entrust to deacons the rest of the charitable works toward their neighbors. St. Paul writes to Timothy: “Make use of the time until I arrive by reading to the people, preaching, and teaching” (1 Tm 4:13)…

Therefore, trusting not in ourselves but in the God who raises the dead to life (cf. 2 Cor 1:9), we despise human affairs and cry out to the Lord: “You are my hope in the day of disaster” (Jer 17:17). Let us never be exhausted in body or in spirit, for we are fellow workers with God (cf. 1 Cor 3:9). The Lord Jesus is with us always even to the end of time (cf. Matt 28:20). Therefore let us not be weakened by scandal or persecution, lest we seem ungrateful for God’s favor, since His assistance is as strong as His promises are true (Pope Clement XIII, A Quo Die).

“His assistance is as strong as His promises are true.” I love this quote!

In Christ,
Pete

 

[Pete_Holter]

These six brethren also went with me and we entered the man’s house. 13 "And he reported to us how he had seen the angel standing in his house, and saying, Send to Joppa and have Simon, who is also called Peter, brought here; 14 and he will speak words to you by which you will be saved, you and all your household.' 15 "And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as He did upon us at the beginning. 16 **"And I remembered the word of the Lord, how He used to say, John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.'** 17 “Therefore if God gave to them the same gift as He gave to us also after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?” 18 When they heard this, they quieted down and glorified God, saying, “Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life.” -Acts 11

I provided two ways of understanding this event in Post 464 that do not contradict the Catholic faith. You may favor the second way of looking at it, although I realize you reject both. I haven’t decided which of the two I prefer. Part of my struggle in adamantly defending the second view is trying to identify when the Apostles were first saved, and it seems like this happened prior to Pentecost. For Jesus tells the Apostles that everyone who does what they did during Jesus’ earthly ministry “will inherit eternal life” (Matt 19:29). And already Peter had spoken for the rest of the Apostles saying, “You have the words of eternal life, and we have believed, and have come to know, that You are the Holy One of God” (John 6:68-69).

Also, the times that the reception of the Holy Spirit gets mentioned in Acts do not always coincide with the reception of the Holy Spirit when we become a Christian through faith and in baptism. As I mentioned, I think that a case can be made for this being true in the lives of the Apostles (and, of course, Mary): that the reception of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost was not the day they got saved. And we also have the believers in Samaria who “received the word of God” and “believed Philip as he preached” (Acts 8:14; 12), and who were also “baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 8:16). But the “gift of God” (Acts 8:20), i.e., the gift of the Holy Spirit, “had not yet fallen on any of them” (Acts 8:16). Here we are talking about baptized believers who had not received the “gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 10:45)!!! You are saying that we receive the Holy Spirit unto salvation when we first believe. I am saying that we receive the Holy Spirit unto salvation when we believe “and are baptized” (Mark 16:16). And yet neither of us can account for this episode in Acts 8 within the scope of our present discussion. The Catholic Church rightly refers this reception of the Spirit to the sacrament of confirmation (seen also in Acts 19:6).

Nevertheless, I do see that the second view I offered is stronger in other ways and, if compelled to defend this view, I would simply refer the instances of Pentecost, which is described as a baptism in Acts 1:5, and the reception of the Gentiles, which is compared to Pentecost by Peter, to being exceptional cases where neither group had anyone to administer baptism in the normative way, i.e., through human agency. Peter and “the brothers” (Acts 1:15) had no one physically – they themselves being the only ones around – and the Gentiles had no one willingly.

What are the words that save “water baptism” or perhaps “the gospel”? What do you think God meant? What is the “gift” in this passage? Salvation!! praise the Lord! This is but one of several examples which directly contradict your belief that water baptism removes sins unless you also believe the Bible contradicts itself and also believe that God is the God of change.

That is your choice; I have already made mine and I am so certain of my own salvation

We are saved by the preaching of the Gospel because “faith comes from hearing” (Rom 10:17), and, normatively speaking, it is the first means of grace to bring us to Christ. We “receive the Spirit… by hearing with faith” (Gal 3:2) because faith leads us to baptism and the grace received through the two come together to unite us to God. We see an episode in Acts 19 that corresponds with what Paul is saying in Galatians. Paul tells “some disciples” to believe in Jesus, and “On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 19:5). To believe is to ask for baptism, and to be baptized is to receive the Spirit. “For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body” (1 Cor 12:13). “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal 3:27).

Finally, that “being baptized into Christ” is a water baptism can be seen when Peter asks, “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people…? And he commanded them to be baptized into the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 10:47-48); and again when the Ethiopian exclaims, “See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?” (Acts 8:37)

I didn’t do a final check of all of my Scriptural citations, so I am sorry if I have any wrong. I hope you have a blessed day listening to some Matt Maher tunes!

Your brother in the Lord,
Pete

 

[Pete_Holter]

LOL! Yeah, these forums can be quite addictive!

Ha ha! Yes!!! I gave it up for Lent this year, and will probably have to give it up again. Waaaaaaah!!! :crying:

You can listen to a few talks from Grudem here. I was blessed to have had my introduction to Christianity as an adult come to me through reading his Systematic Theology. It’s the systematic theology book that Sovereign Grace Ministries uses and I came to faith in Christ largely through their ministry. Reading Grudem was part of what led me to read John Calvin’s Institutes, and I was blessed to have been given the time in this life to be able to read both Systematic Theology and the Institutes cover to cover. It was really Grudem, Sproul, and Packer who led me to Calvin, Calvin who led me to Augustine, and Augustine, very surprisingly and unexpectedly, brought me safely home to the Catholic Church! I very much identify with Augustine and I truly believe that if you stay close to Augustine, you will stay close to Jesus.

Garrigou-Lagrange was one of John Paul II’s instructors, and he put out a book called Predestination. If you’d like, you can read the first five chapters of it here.

Your brother in the LORD,
Pete

 

[Beth_Martin]

Good afternoon, Beth!I read Acts 9 and 22 in light of each other. I don’t see the contradiction. It’s your interpretation of the immutability of God and how that impacts His interaction with His creation that is creating this contradiction for you. Jesus told Ananias that Paul had “seen in a vision a man named Ananias come in and lay his hands on him so that he might regain his sight” (Acts 9:12). Acts 22:13 says that Paul “saw him” after he had done this. Ananias explained to Paul that he had also been sent so that Paul may “be filled with the Holy Spirit” (Acts 9:17). And apart from laying hands on him, the only other thing Ananias did was baptize him. “Rise and be baptized and wash away your sins, calling on His Name” (Acts 22:16). Therefore, understanding the text in a straightforward manner, Paul received the Holy Spirit when he called on the Name of Jesus in baptism.

Does Acts 9 say when Paul was filled? Then why impose on the text? Your understanding cannot be correct since God said he does not change and Hebrews 11, among a plethera of other places, tells us exactly how the OT saints were saved and guess what; they are the same (by His Mercy and Grace through Faith in Christ). Who is one to make God to lie? Acts 22:16 you imposed on the text to fit your teaching. Acts 2:38 appears to contradict what Peter said in Acts 10 & 11, but that is a translation issue that is easily corrected without changing the grammatical structure.

We believe that he is indeed referring here to our baptism “of water and the Spirit” (John 3:5), because we believe that there is only “one baptism” (Ephesians 4:5), and the baptism Peter is talking about manifestly uses water.

Knowledge of the OT would correct that misunderstanding and John the Baptist told us that the true baptisnm He gives, which is the Holy Spirit.

When Peter says that the saving effect of baptism is “not as a removal of dirt from the body,” doesn’t this indicate to our mind that he is indeed referring to a baptism using a physical cleansing agent, i.e., water? Otherwise, why mention this aspect about our baptism not saving us? If it were not a baptism using water that he was referring to, then why the confusion about what’s happening to the physical body during the baptism? Hence, the correspondence between our baptism and the Old Testament figures being “brought safely through water” (1 Pet 3:20). Peter’s caution about baptism not saving us “as a removal of dirt from the body,” is actually a caution against an over-concern for the mode of baptism, about how the water is used on your body. It’s ok if you don’t get all wet like when you’re taking a bath. We don’t have to be scrubbing our armpits with the waters of baptism in order to receive the Spiritual cleansing. The symbolic washing effect of the water is just that: symbolic. And although water is necessary for baptism, we do not believe that the water by itself saves us. We believe that the Holy Spirit commingled with the water saves us.

I would love to answer your comments concerning Peter and the water, but if you read my last post to DES concerning the same passage, then you are left with two choices - hold onto your incorrect understanding of the passage or accept the Word of God.

We believe that it is Jesus Who baptizes us with His Spirit through human agency. This is the meaning of John’s Gospel where he tells us “that the Pharisees had heard that Jesus was making and baptizing more disciples than John (although Jesus Himself did not baptize, but only His disciples)” …The two baptisms are one. We understand the solution to be that we the human agents baptize by applying the water and invoking God’s Name, while Jesus at the same time baptizes us with His Holy Spirit and with fire. This is how we are “born of water and the Spirit” (John 3:5). And this is why John the Baptist is able to say that Jesus baptizes with the Holy Spirit rather than with water like himself. Jesus uses us – “His disciples” – to apply the water.

With the grace and love towards you of our Lord Jesus Christ,
Pete

Interesting interpretation of Scripture; I would like to see where this confounded explanation is taught in Catholic doctrine.

Works-righteousness type of salvation which effectively kills the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement for all sins and elevates the individual so that he/she can boast. Hebrews among other places tells us that Jesus was the perfect sacrifice for full atonement, not partial, and that no more sacrifice was necessary and sat down at the right hand of God “waiting from that time onward UNTIL HIS ENEMIES BE MADE A FOOTSTOOL FOR HIS FEET”

It also makes God the god of change and I do not know that god for my God is the God who does not change by His own testimony and the God who did it all for me and those who walk by faith in Christ, although I deserve none of it neither could I do anything to “earn” it. Thanks to my God that His Sons full righteousness is fully credited (imputed as the Bible explicitly states) to me so that I may escape the wrath to come on all the ungodly of this world who have rejected the gospel.

Romans 4:4-5 puts it as simple as it can get. Verse 4 is the works-based “salvation” and verse 5 is the faith alone based salvation.

Now to him who works, the wages ***are not counted as grace ***but as debt. 5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness,

 

[Beth_Martin]

I provided two ways of understanding this event in Post 464 that do not contradict the Catholic faith. You may favor the second way of looking at it, although I realize you reject both. I haven’t decided which of the two I prefer. Part of my struggle in adamantly defending the second view is trying to identify when the Apostles were first saved, and it seems like this happened prior to Pentecost. For Jesus tells the Apostles that everyone who does what they did during Jesus’ earthly ministry “will inherit eternal life” (Matt 19:29). And already Peter had spoken for the rest of the Apostles saying, “You have the words of eternal life, and we have believed, and have come to know, that You are the Holy One of God” (John 6:68-69).

Also, the times that the reception of the Holy Spirit gets mentioned in Acts do not always coincide with the reception of the Holy Spirit when we become a Christian through faith and in baptism. As I mentioned, I think that a case can be made for this being true in the lives of the Apostles (and, of course, Mary): that the reception of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost was not the day they got saved. And we also have the believers in Samaria who “received the word of God” and “believed Philip as he preached” (Acts 8:14; 12), and who were also “baptized in the Name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 8:16). But the “gift of God” (Acts 8:20), i.e., the gift of the Holy Spirit, “had not yet fallen on any of them” (Acts 8:16). Here we are talking about baptized believers who had not received the “gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 10:45)!!! You are saying that we receive the Holy Spirit unto salvation when we first believe. I am saying that we receive the Holy Spirit unto salvation when we believe “and are baptized” (Mark 16:16). And yet neither of us can account for this episode in Acts 8 within the scope of our present discussion. The Catholic Church rightly refers this reception of the Spirit to the sacrament of confirmation (seen also in Acts 19:6).

Nevertheless, I do see that the second view I offered is stronger in other ways and, if compelled to defend this view, I would simply refer the instances of Pentecost, which is described as a baptism in Acts 1:5, and the reception of the Gentiles, which is compared to Pentecost by Peter, to being exceptional cases where neither group had anyone to administer baptism in the normative way, i.e., through human agency. Peter and “the brothers” (Acts 1:15) had no one physically – they themselves being the only ones around – and the Gentiles had no one willingly.

We are saved by the preaching of the Gospel because “faith comes from hearing” (Rom 10:17), and, normatively speaking, it is the first means of grace to bring us to Christ. We “receive the Spirit… by hearing with faith” (Gal 3:2) because faith leads us to baptism and the grace received through the two come together to unite us to God. We see an episode in Acts 19 that corresponds with what Paul is saying in Galatians. Paul tells “some disciples” to believe in Jesus, and “On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 19:5). To believe is to ask for baptism, and to be baptized is to receive the Spirit. “For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body” (1 Cor 12:13). “For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ” (Gal 3:27).

Finally, that “being baptized into Christ” is a water baptism can be seen when Peter asks, “Can anyone withhold water for baptizing these people…? And he commanded them to be baptized into the name of Jesus Christ” (Acts 10:47-48); and again when the Ethiopian exclaims, “See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?” (Acts 8:37)

I didn’t do a final check of all of my Scriptural citations, so I am sorry if I have any wrong. I hope you have a blessed day listening to some Matt Maher tunes!

Your brother in the Lord,
Pete

I’ll say Pete you are a nice guy; may the Lord bless you as well.

Beth

 

[paul_c]

Works-righteousness type of salvation which effectively kills the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement for all sins and elevates the individual so that he/she can boast. Hebrews among other places tells us that Jesus was the perfect sacrifice for full atonement, not partial, and that no more sacrifice was necessary and sat down at the right hand of God “waiting from that time onward UNTIL HIS ENEMIES BE MADE A FOOTSTOOL FOR HIS FEET”

It also makes God the god of change and I do not know that god for my God is the God who does not change by His own testimony and the God who did it all for me and those who walk by faith in Christ, although I deserve none of it neither could I do anything to “earn” it. Thanks to my God that His Sons full righteousness is fully credited (imputed as the Bible explicitly states) to me so that I may escape the wrath to come on all the ungodly of this world who have rejected the gospel.

Romans 4:4-5 puts it as simple as it can get. Verse 4 is the works-based “salvation” and verse 5 is the faith alone based salvation.

Now to him who works, the wages ***are not counted as grace ***but as debt. 5 But to him who does not work but believes on Him who justifies the ungodly, his faith is accounted for righteousness,

Beth,
I’m jumping in the middle here, but I think you are making this unnecessarily difficult.
You see, The core of Jesus’s message is love, not faith. And love is an action word. To love is to do things for God and others without expecting anything in return. Remember the Great commandment," Love God with all your heart, all your strength, and all your mind and love your neighbor as yourself. Jesus described this as the essence of the teachings of Moses and the prophets. And his new commandment was to love each other as he love us. and when asked directly on what it took to gain eternal life in Matthew 19, he didn’t say “have faith in me”, he said to follow the commandments. We are called to love with no strings attached, even to love our enemies… This is what it takes to gain eternal life. We can not be judged on our faith, only on how we live our faith and that means, we will be judged on how we love.

Living a life of love is work, no doubt about it. But it in no way diminishes Christ attonement. Jesus showed us the way to eternal life. As he says throughout the gospels, we need to follow him. Words are not enough. We need to do as he did.

Take the words of the Apostles to heart. Read 1Corinthians 13 and see that Paul says that if you have faith enough to move mountains, but do not have love, you are nothing. And read James 2; and understand that faith without works is dead. Even the Demons believe that Jesus is the son of God. In fact, they know it to be true. It takes more than faith to be saved. You must live out your faith. surely you must understand this. And if you must live out your faith, your salvation can not be assured until you die while still in the state of grace, having successfully lived out the faith.

As for baptism being necessary for Salvation, this can not be denied. Why else would baptism have such a prominent role in the gospel? And why else would Jesus have told the Apostles to baptize all the nations in the great commission (Matthew 28: 18-20). Oh, and by the way, the eucharist is also necessary for eternal life. If you don’t eat Jesus’ body and drink his blood, there is no life within you. (John 6).

 

[Tomb54]

Except the written and the oral are one in the same which is the Word of God. If you look closely at the verse you refer to all Paul is saying is the manner in which he delivered the gospel, either in written form or by mouth (oral).

God said the Holy Spirit He gives the Christian leads them into all truth; otherwise how would an individual be able to tell the difference between a true teacher and a false one - common sense and is exactly what God taught.

Then who wrote down the oral? Did every word the apostles or Christ say was written down somewhere that you have at your disposal? Many of the things have been headed down by the early Church fathers. Have you read any of them to see what the early Christians actually believed? If you do not know what they believe who were taught the oral teachings then how do you really know what the Apostle mean by what is written down or are you trying to say what is in the bible is all the Apostles ever said for those 70 years after Christ rose.

 

[inkaneer]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth Martin
Except the written and the oral are one in the same which is the Word of God. If you look closely at the verse you refer to all Paul is saying is the manner in which he delivered the gospel, either in written form or by mouth (oral).

God said the Holy Spirit He gives the Christian leads them into all truth; otherwise how would an individual be able to tell the difference between a true teacher and a false one - common sense and is exactly what God taught.

Then who wrote down the oral? Did every word the apostles or Christ say was written down somewhere that you have at your disposal? Many of the things have been headed down by the early Church fathers. Have you read any of them to see what the early Christians actually believed? If you do not know what they believe who were taught the oral teachings then how do you really know what the Apostle mean by what is written down or are you trying to say what is in the bible is all the Apostles ever said for those 70 years after Christ rose.

First, anyone reading Paul’s epistles can easily see that they are remedial in their nature. Paul and his companions had already preached in the various cities to whom he later addressed his epistles. If he hadn’t then who is he writing to? Who is going to read it? Second, Paul’s epistles, in and of themselves do not contain the complete Gospel. So to say that the Oral Tradition was reduced to writing so that the Oral Tradition and the Written Tradition are one and the same is foolhardy at best and is a pretext for wanting to believe sola scriptura.

Sola scriptura, meanwhile is a clever military maneuver by Satan. It is the old military concept utilized by Julius Caesar as well as others of dividing a superior opposing force so as to conquer it piece by piece rather than risking being enveloped and defeated. That sola scriptura has divided protestantism and continues to do so is undeniable.

 

[Sherry_G]

I’ll say Pete you are a nice guy; may the Lord bless you as well.

Beth

After all the time and effort Pete has spent to give you some real avenues for study, growth in knowledge, understanding and wisdom, you might actually consider opening up your mind a little and exploring some of these tools. Many of your posts sound pretty much like those of a small child who is clinging to an idea they have, regardless of how many explanations and new ideas are offered for consideration. Since this website is offered for your education in the Catholic faith, why not give it a try instead of firing back as if you are playing in a ping pong game? I have been reading along and see how stubbornly you cling to some pretty bad arguments, no matter how many different ways things are explained or how many resources are suggested. Please try to consider that the Holy Bible was not assembled and put forth by the Catholic Church until nearly 400 years after Christ died. Since Christ did establish a Church and clearly says so in His own words, and also promised us that this Church would prevail until He comes again, there can be no other true Church. For Fifteen hundred years after Jesus Christ walked on this earth, everyone was a Catholic if they believed that Jesus Christ is Lord and Saviour. Everyone… Everyone. Heresies and schisms are all the work of Satan and have created thousands upon thousands of “new” teachings, including the one you are stubbornly clinging to out of false pride.

I pray that you will take some time to really pray about the wonderful teachings you are receiving here in this forum, spend some time studying and learning just how rich and wonderful the beautiful faith of our Catholic Church really is. Jesus did not make a mistake when he established our Church to lead us. There is always room for you, Beth. Let the Holy Spirit guide you into the fullness of the faith you were born for.

 

[Abu]

There’s more!

What Beth Martin is forgetting also is, due to these unauthorised interpretations of the Catholic Church’s New Testament that She gave us, guided by the Holy Spirit, that “And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written.” (Jn 21:25).

 

[Sherry_G]

, Abu. And, as Inkaneer points out, the New Testament letters are written to address specific problems that developed among the various congregations of the faithful. He was giving guidance, correction and even chastisement at times, making it perfectly clear to see and understand.

Apologetics forum is a wonderful way for any non Catholic to obtain initial information in answer to questions about what we believe and why. Some people come with another agenda, I guess but as someone pointed out to me, each person has their own way of coming to our beautiful faith. Some arrive joyfully sprinting and some are kicking and screaming for a time. Some leave for foolish or sinful reasons and return, like me (Praise the Lord!)

 

[Des]

Not in Scripture (magisterium) and plenty of divisions among Catholics concerning doctrine and even how the Mass should be performed or not.

There is a difference when one says there are differences between mere opinions regarding which Mass would bring the faithful closer or if the divisions are caused over their belief whether the New Mass is licit or not. If the latter, then those who believe it’s illicit have placed their trust in themselves and outside the Church just as you have done.

But here’s the crux of the matter. ‘Everyone’ who submits to the Magisterium in union with the Pope are of one faith, flock and fold. However, not everyone who clings to sola Scripture will be, just as my non denom friends refute your own personal dogmas as you do theirs. Kind of makes one think doesn’t it.

Your 3 friends are ignorant concerning the “perseverance of the saints” and how it is taught in God’s word. If they are Christian & have it shown by Scripture their error, then they will accept the truth…

I showed one of my non denom friends this post on her cell phone today and she had quite the laugh Beth. And she added a 4th sola Sciptura person who disagrees with your claim as well. Her friend who’s been going to school for awhile to become a Pastor. So yeah…seems either you’re claiming to be their pope or you guys just can’t agree on things because of the poor logic of sola Scriptura. Take your pick.

The topic is water baptism in RELATION to salvation which is why I said Paul deemphasized water baptism, but would never deemphasized salvation or its elements, which water baptism is not. Understand?

I can’t understand things so poorly put together. Did or did Paul not deemphasized WATER BAPTISM which we all know is a commandment of Jesus to them? If you say He didn’t, then your verse is useless since it proves he’s not deemphasizing anything here as I said before. If you say He did, then Paul is clearly going against the wishes of Christ when He said: " Therefore, go and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit."

How about putting n your thinking cap for a minute; how did the water or flood save Noah and the 8 yet destroy the rest of all the earth?

I’ve already given my opinion on the matter. Noah was saved from the body of sin of the unrighteous, that surrounded He and His family of that day, by the waters of the flood, giving a new birth or regenerating humanity just as the Spirit of God does through the waters of Baptism.

They can’t both be true, so something is wrong and we can usually look at the translation and verify it from Scripture. KJV say “saved by water”; we know that isn’t true for the water is the judgment, but the better translations including the NKJV says “were saved through water”, which now begins to make some common sense in light of the fact that the water killed everything.

lol I can likewise say that the Lord saves us through the waters of Baptism or we are saved through the waters of Baptism by the Graces of God. Doesn’t change a thing. And sorry beth but you’re in a bit of a pickle because of the verse that follows when it says: "Whereunto Baptism being of the LIKE FORM now saveth you also’ meaning the element of the waters of Baptism being of the like form of the waters of Noah, now SAVETH YOU ALSO. Notice the word also there Beth. It’s connecting with the waters of Noah saving Him ALSO. You see how that works? And even without that word ‘also’ it’s still saying that the like form (water) now saves. This ‘like form’ word is a beauty actually because it’s connecting us to the physical element of water no matter how much you’d love to deny it.

As for all your other so called verses of ‘proof’ we can look at God using the waters of Baptism to ‘DESTROY’ our old self while likewise saving us from eternal damnation. There’s a double meaning there and we all know that the Bible is full of those.

 

[Saved_Lady]

St. Augustine was a wise fellow that gave alot of deep thought and insight into certain truths professed by the Church. However, you’ll be hard pressed to find any Catholic or the Church for that matter to ever have proclaimed any of the ‘Doctor’s of the Church’ to always be without error. But I’m sure you already know this and to be honest, it makes your post above quite silly to make in the first place.

Merely your stating that Paul deemphasized water Baptism doesn’t make it so. On the contrary, nothing in that verse implies that Baptism wasn’t important if you understand the roles of certain individuals. Few had the gift to preach the Gospel where on the other hand, Baptizing someone could be done by many Presbyters or Deacons of the Church. Paul had a gift to get people willfully ready for entrance into the Church through Baptism. Your problem Beth is you ignore Tradition and interpret snippets from the Bible without the grand picture. This has obviously lead you into error and will continue to do so.

The verse you used in red means that John did indeed only Baptise with water as a preparation for the real thing. You see, after the Resurrection, even though water will still be used (Scriptural), it will now be the Holy Spirit working through this property. It’s the physical means which God chose to do this. Very simple and easy to understand actually.

Read the entire verse in context. He’s telling us that the one being Baptised has to have a good conscience towards his love for God and His Will first and foremost. Without this, the water would be like washing away dirt from the body only so He’s making sure he’s placing the emphasis on their conscience and their wanting to be a Christian. When an adult gets Baptised, unlike an infant, he must be a willing participant. This is nitty gritty so to speak, of that verse.

Not at all. Because again, John was preparing for the real thing. You see, the element of water was still to be used or John’s preparation would have been useless. The missing ingredient was Christ who through His own death and Resurrection, would Baptise us with the Holy Spirit but again, with water as the physical property which this Grace of God was to be conferred.

Someone feeling secure about their Salvation doesn’t make it truth Beth. No Catholic here is jealous of Savedlady but I will be the first to admit that I feel sorry for her for rejecting the necessary Sacraments of Christ that WILL save her, if she should ever accept them.

Don’t feel sorry for me DES, rest assured I have not rejected anything from God. I am secure in my salvation because of the shed blood of Jesus Christ. God is not the author of confusing. I am not confused. The Bible is not for arguing over, it is to live by.
God Bless you!

 

[Saved_Lady]

It sure looks like the baptist would be totally lost without the bible.

Matthew

God revealed in their hearts His word and laws. They had to sacrifice before the veil was rent.

 

[Saved_Lady]

This is what I like. Protestants throw scripture verses as if they were hand grenades. You lob over Romans 10:13 someone else counters with John 6:54. Missing in all this is the fact that not only is scripture to be taken in its entirety but it must also take into account translation problems. A good example is President Jimmy Carter going to Poland and saying that He loves the Polish people. However in translating it into the Polish language it came out that He lusts for the Polosh people. The Polish got a laugh on that one. But this is why there are different translations of scripture from essentially the same texts. Everyone will use the text that favors their interpretation.

So does calling on the name of the Lord save you? How about Mt 25:31-46 where Jesus tells the people about judgement? There is not a word about calling on the name of the Lord there. Instead it is all about works of mercy. Indeed Scripture does state rather emphatically that we will be judged by our works. See Rev 20:12 and 20:13.

Some protestants like to say “I am saved” as if it is past tense. This is the OSAS heresy. But Paul certainly didn’t think he was already saved despite his encounter with Christ on the road. Instead Paul in 1 Cor 9 says that even he may be disqualified.

So, what are you trying to say? Am I wrong for standing on the promise of God? Am I wrong for reading and believing the Bible, (God’s word)? Or, are you just throwing stones because my understanding of God is different from yours? Talking about throwing scripture verses like grenades, NO one has said that the scripture I quoted is wrong. Romans 10:13, Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord, shall be saved. Read all of the Bible, don’t stop with one scripture.

 

[Sherry_G]

So, what are you trying to say? Am I wrong for standing on the promise of God? Am I wrong for reading and believing the Bible, (God’s word)? Or, are you just throwing stones because my understanding of God is different from yours? Talking about throwing scripture verses like grenades, NO one has said that the scripture I quoted is wrong. Romans 10:13, Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord, shall be saved. Read all of the Bible, don’t stop with one scripture.

Very good advice, Saved Lady! Real ALL of the Bible is absolutely correct, and please don’t leave out any of the very good advice given by Our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ Himself! The problem you are having is only one of interpretation. Your choice in that regard is lacking. Why not take a long hard look at history. What has happened since the day Jesus died? How did you come by that Holy Bible?

 

[paul_c]

Don’t feel sorry for me DES, rest assured I have not rejected anything from God. I am secure in my salvation because of the shed blood of Jesus Christ. God is not the author of confusing. I am not confused. The Bible is not for arguing over, it is to live by.
God Bless you!

Yes, the bible is to live by. But what if you fail to live by what it teaches? Are you still saved simply because you acknowledge Jesus died on the cross for our sins? Or do you really need to follow Jesus’ words and actions - loving God and neighbor with all your heart, all your soul and all your strength? Do you need to follow the commandments? Do you need to take part in the sacraments, including baptism and the eucharist (you have read John 6, right?) If not, why are these requirements so clear in the Bible. Why does St. Paul say in 1Corinthians 13," If I had faith enough to move mountains, but do not have love I am nothing?" Why does St. James say in the second chapter of his epistle, " Faith without works is dead?" Why did Jesus and the Apostles spend so much time describing how to live the Christian life, if all that mattered was faith?

How do you reconcile this with your theology?

 

[inkaneer]

So, what are you trying to say? Am I wrong for standing on the promise of God? Am I wrong for reading and believing the Bible, (God’s word)? Or, are you just throwing stones because my understanding of God is different from yours? Talking about throwing scripture verses like grenades, NO one has said that the scripture I quoted is wrong. Romans 10:13, Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord, shall be saved. Read all of the Bible, don’t stop with one scripture.

Scripture records that Jesus establiahed A Church [Mt 16:18 ]. That is singular not plural. Scripture also records that Jesus prayed to his Father that his followers be one as He and the Father were one [John 17:11]. No one said that the scripture you quoted is wrong BUT I don’t see anything in scripture that says one interpretation is as good as another either. You see it is not the scripture that is wrong, after all, the scripture is entirely Catholic. It is your interpretation of scripture where you err.

It is said that the Old Testament prefigures the New and the New Testament fulfills the Old. Look at the Old Testament and show me the times that the Jews were allowed to interpret the scriptures individually as you claim you can do now. It never happened. Every time the OT Jews deviated from the one acknowleged authority, be it Moses, Aaron, the prophets, etc. something bad happened to them. Even Jesus told the Jews to follow what the scribes and the Pharisees say “…for they sit on Moses’s seat” [Mt 23:2]. These were the very same scribes and Pharisees that Jesus called a “brood of vipers” [Mt 12:34].
So how do you think it will be any different in the New Covenant? I would like an answer to that question too.

Protestantism and protestants themselves are in trouble. The five centuries of division and fracturing since Luther and his sola scriptura has led to a plethora of protestant denominations and it goes on unabated. Protestantism is nothing more than a cafeteria of where one can pick and choose which doctrines to hold or get rid of. Is this what Jesus meant when He prayed that His followers be one? Better wake up girl and smell the incense because maybe in the future you will long to smell it and won’t be able to smell it.